G.R. No. 158568 November 17, 2004
Alicia D. Tagaro, petitioner, vs. Ester A. Garcia, Chairperson Commission on Higher Education, Roger Perez, Executive Director, Teresita Baterina, AFS Director, Commission on Higher Education, all in their official capacities, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alicia D. Tagaro was appointed Director II of the Higher Education Development Fund (HEDF) of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) in 1996. In 1999, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) reclassified the HEDF head position to Director III, effective May 1, 1999, and petitioner’s salary was adjusted accordingly. However, CHED, citing Civil Service rules requiring a new presidential appointment for a reclassified position, later demanded that petitioner submit documentary requirements for such an appointment. Petitioner refused to comply, arguing no new appointment was necessary.
Consequently, CHED, through respondent Chairperson Ester Garcia, ordered the rollback of petitioner’s salary to the Director II level effective August 2000 and required her to refund salary differentials received from May 1999. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, challenging CHED’s actions. The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Petitioner appealed this dismissal to the Court of Appeals (CA).

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s appeal due to forum-shopping.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal. While the RTC case was pending appeal before the CA, petitioner filed a separate “Administrative Appeal” with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) questioning the same CHED memorandum that rolled back her salary and required a refund. This constituted forum-shopping.
The legal logic is grounded on the prohibition against forum-shopping, which is the act of filing multiple cases involving the same parties, issues, and prayers for relief in different courts or administrative bodies to increase the chances of a favorable outcome. The pivotal test is whether the litigant’s actions create the possibility of conflicting decisions from different fora on the same issues. Here, petitioner’s simultaneous pursuit of relief in the CA (via appeal of the RTC dismissal) and the CSC (via an administrative appeal) on the core issue of the legality of CHED’s memorandum order created a clear risk of contradictory rulings. For instance, the CA could reverse the RTC and remand the case for trial on the merits, while the CSC could independently rule on the validity of the same CHED order. To prevent such confusion and vexation to the courts and parties, the law mandates dismissal of a case upon a finding of forum-shopping. Therefore, the CA’s dismissal of the petition was proper.